This American Thanksgiving Season I wish to thank all in my fields of “ISD – Instructional Systems Design” and “HPT – Human Performance Technology” who SHARE. Thanks to you all!!!

Probably the one person who has had the greatest influence on my professional work – and others who have influenced me – is Geary A. Rummler, CPT, Ph.D of the Performance Design Lab.

My association with Dr. Rummler started at Wickes Lumber in Saginaw Michigan in 1979 in my first post-college job in the Training Services Department.

Geary’s brother-in-law, Roger worked there in the A/V group of the department – and he was instrumental in bringing in a new manager for the instructional development group based on Geary’s and Geary’s brother Rick’s recommendation. Karen Kennedy worked at Blue Cross Blue Shield in Detroit where Rick Rummler worked. Karen brought in Gail Tornga from “the Blues” and was “given me” by the VP of HR. I had spent 2.5 years in the field at one of the Do-It-Yourself — DIY Lumber Centers in Lawrence KS as a part-time counter sales person while getting my degree in Radio-TV-Film. There we practiced a derivative (of a derivative?) of the Praxis stuff, a firm headed by Geary Rummler and Tom Gilbert in the 1970s.

Then I went to work at Motorola’s Training & Education Center (MTEC) that later became Motorola University. There I worked as one of the original 13 Training Project Supervisors at the new corporate training function – it had been disbanded and decentralized to the Business Sectors 10 years early – but the recent pressure from Japan’s rivals in the world of electronics had caused the CEO, Bob Galvin, to rethink that approach.

I had Geary as “my consultant” on several projects – I temporarily direct-reported to Bill Wiggenhorn for 9 months and headed the efforts for all Manufacturing/Materials and Purchasing T&D – performance-based T&D – coming from HQ. Carol Panza was working with Geary at that time and she was on most of those projects too.

At MTEC I was being exposed to and worked with both Rummler and Neil Rackham (of SPIN fame) and the world-wide quality movement gurus’ work from Deming and Juran (to name but two).

I wrote and published and disseminated an un-requested “White Paper” entitled: Participative Management of the Performance System, in May 1982 where I suggested that we undertake an effort to combine the Rummler-stuff and the Rackham stuff and all of the quality stuff. Motorola was really into “Participative Management” as an approach to get good ideas and real feedback from the frontline troops to the top level executives. As well as higher levels of effort – when working smarter. As might be expected, it wasn’t fully embraced enthusiastically by most long-term Motorolans of any management level.

I had recently gotten a boss, a 20-year Manufacturing veteran of Motorola, Paul Heidenreich. Paul took my White paper and came up with an idea that we began working on with Bill Wiggenhorn and Geary Rummler, something Paul called the D-I-Y Geary Rummler Consulting Kit. We could practice what Rummler preached and minimize our expense – and we really couldn’t spread Geary around enough to all of our pressing projects. So the thought was – teach everyone to be a junior Geary Rummler. It was a subset of my White Paper idea.

In the middle of that DIY-Rummler Consulting Kit effort, to the surprise of many, I left Motorola after 18 months, to join Ray Svenson and my wife (at the time) Karen Kennedy at R. A. Svenson & Associates. But the effort at Motorola continued. It became a course OPS (I think). That morphed into an “Action Learning” meeting effort – as many Motorolan’s were tired of “courses” – and that morphed again.

Geary’s current business partner, Alan Ramius, also one of those original 13 Training Project Supervisors with me at MTEC wrote about the efforts as it continued and merged with other disciplines/tools in his article: The Mists of Six Sigma. Many things have been written about the development of Six Sigma. This adds to the complex story of how the Motorola effort actually unfolded.

Geary A. Rummler…

Geary’s 1990 book, coauthored with his business partner at the time- Alan P. Brache: Improving Performanceis a classic for those wanting to improve performance at the organization, process and individual levels.

In 1994 the 3 partners at SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. wrote our book: The Quality Roadmap (currently out of print) where we proposed a derivative of some of Geary’s thought about processes in his book.

That became what I now call the L-C-S Model – a WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) approach for looking at common/shared and unique processes up and down an organization. More on that later.

In my 3rd book T&D Systems ViewI used the Clockface Model that I had been playing with – a way to turn the L-C-S Model, which I really liked and used in my consulting gigs, into a visual tool with my clients and the Master Performers that I had asked for of my Project Steering Teams in my project efforts for our clients at SWI.

I did it for the “center space” of the Clockface – more on that later too.

On the cover of my 4th book “Management Areas of Performance” I went back to the L-C-S model to depict how one might first start to do a WBS for management responsibilities which I call “Areas of Performance” -with the “fourth” tier of the process that any manager’s department staff works in – that are both owned and/or supported (not owned) by that manager. As in – when a department’s people work on some other cross-functional process that their department does not own.

The Ishikawa Diagram, from the 1950s, is key to my thinking about Process Improvement, but I found it limiting as anything more than a graphic for initial dialogue with clients and staff.

I needed something to demonstrate more of the complexity and the scalability for this evolving concept of getting a handle on the complexity of processes.

This next graphic wasn’t it. This graphic was intended to convey the thought of: Processes andOutputs as Inputs.

This next graphic wasn’t it either – but is an updated view of the prior graphic.

This graphic was intended to convey some initial thoughts about process complexity in the real world.

One must look at 1- the Process Design itself (or processes themselves), and then 2- at the Human Assets that enable the processes – or don’t enable, and 3- the Environmental Assets that also enable or don’t. It takes all three to be as right as needed – and not necessarily “perfect/Six Sigma” either – just close enough. Another three-legged stool to keep in balance.

The smart thing to do is first focus on the Process. Is it “even” designed in the first place (tight enough and loose enough) to meet the balanced requirements of its STAKEHOLDERS – where the customer is of course important – but the Customer Isn’t King.

The above graphic is but “one version” of a Stakeholder Hierarchy.

Do your own. It’s probably different!

With this approach one can start wherever in the big Enterprise that it makes sense to start – from a ROI – Risk/Reward perspective.

And to start a look at any department (or higher level function or lower level teams) using the L-C-S with the 4th tier of the specific CORE processes of that entity (function/department/team – whatever).

I needed a way to tease out both the common and unique processes/AoPs. Especially those that are owned outside of the organizational entity we were focused on in our efforts.

Again, I would then, as needed – not every effort required this – turn the L-C-S model into a Clockface Model. To discuss intra-process things or inter-process things.

Here is a simple framework for looking intra…at Outputs as Inputs…or an Output as Inputs…

Here is a more complex view of an L-C-S at an Enterprise level…where the Enterprise isn’t so complex as one with many Sectors/Business Units/SBUs, etc., etc.

Notice the “many hands“ on this type of Clockface View (above).

So the L-C-S and Clockface Views are interchangeable.

Here below is an Organization Chart of L-C-Ss. Where the Leadership and Support levels would be the same for all entities – but the Core would be unique to each entity.

Here below is an Organization Chart of boxes of Clockfaces. Where the Leadership and Support levels would be the same for all entities – but the Core would be unique to each entity.

And as many organizational entities have processes that feed other’s processes with their Outputs As Inputs…one can now name and number those entities and their processes and tag each Output as an Input(s) for getting your arms around and hands on the process complexity where you need to focus.

In Summary- Thanks!
Thanks again to all who have shared their thoughts and models with me. Some directly…and many others indirectly.

So “indirectly” that I often don’t know whom to credit. Those were pebbles and/or big rocks tossed into the bigger waters of my professional life, where the ripple effect and uneven shoreline makes it almost impossible to determine their sources. Sorry about that!

Search the “Pursuing Performance” Blog and EPPIC Web Site

Search

Save Net Neutrality Now

It’s Not All About Learning

It's All About Performance Competence - at the Individual level, the Team level, the Process level, the Organization level, the Value Chain level and at the Societal level ... or Worker, Work, Workplace and World.

Follow this Pursuing Performance Blog and Pursue Performance Improvement for the ROI

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

My First Friday Favorite Guru Series – My Thanks & Attributions to 42

These 42 individuals are the professionals who have knowingly and unknowingly influenced me the most. Click on the image for links to those 42 posts.

Guy W. Wallace

Performance Analyst & Instructional Architect - Since 1979

External Consultant - Since 1982. Semi-Retired in January 2016.

Guy has served over 80 clients including over 45 F500 firms since November 1982.

Recipient of the ISPI - the International Society for Performance Improvement - Honorary Life Member Award - 2010 - for contributions to the Society and to the Technology for Performance Improvement (PI).

Founding member of ASQ’s Influential Voices Initiative - 2010. Served through 2015.

Guy W. Wallace collaborates with his Clients using predictable, visible, proven processes on time and on budget.

Client work won awards for AT&T, General Motors, Siemens Building Technologies.

Guy's 30+ years in the performance improvement/ training/ learning business have been focused in 2 key areas:

1- analysis of the organization and its business processes to derive the "Learning Requirements" from the "Performance Requirements" and...

2- design/architecting the configuration of instructional and informational content.

Project Overviews for over 200 of my consulting engagements - 1982 through 2015 - are available under the Clients Tab.

Developing L&D Content for Performance Impact

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

L&D: Don’t build it or buy it or curate it unless you are willing to adequately resource deploying it, administrating it, monitoring it and maintaining it. There are life cycle costs beyond the first costs of acquisition.

A 1987 On-Boarding Story – Ramping Up a New Product Manager’s Performance Competence – Quickly

When Shortening the Time to Performance Competence is a Critical Business Issue with Worthy ROI. Click on Image for the Post

In an Enterprise Learning Context

Measured Results Requires Meaningful Measurements

Click on Image for the Post

Paths-Menus-Guides-Maps for Training and Learning and Knowledge Management

The PACT Processes for performance-based T&D, L&D and Knowledge Management

lean-ISD : Effective and Efficient and Focused on the Performance Competence Requirements

In PACT – Even the APPOs – Application Exercises are Architected

If You Could Bring Others Up Closer to the Levels of Your Current State Master Performers – What Would Be the ROI?

Curriculum Architecture Design – Since 1982

Performance Competence Development Paths vs Learning Paths - the difference is in the Analysis.

Recognition and Awards for My Professional Contributions and Consulting

For Specifics - Click on Graphic

Recipient of ISPI’s 2010 Honorary Life Member Award

The top ISPI award, was awarded for contributions to both the technology of performance improvement and to the Society - as unanimously approved by two consecutive boards of the Society. Awarded in 2010.

ISPI – My Professional Home Since 1979

Retirement Book Pricing – As Of March 15, 2016

Click on the Image for a Link to More Info

Free Book PDF: lean-ISD (1999) cover the 5 methodology-sets of the PACT Processes.

Click on Image for free 410-page Book PDF plus links to a $30 Paperback version. lean-ISD was a recipient of a 2002 ISPI Award of Excellence for Instructional Communication.

Get Ahead of the Learning Curve with Performance-based Formal Learning

That's Why Formal and Coaching By Master Performers Should Precede Informal Learning. Less to Unlearn for Ultimate Success: Performance Competence

The Wallace 6 Pack to Guide You – From Training to Performance Improvement Consulting

Click on Graphic to Link for More Information

The Top 30 All Time Most Popular Posts and Pages Are…

The Top 30 All Time Most Popular Posts and Pages Listeed

Here are the all time most popular from the 2433 Posts and 120 Pages of this site… and the number of views of each since 2007. Click on the red image above to link to the post...

1. What Guidance for Approaching Learning Is There From Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? 27,919
2. The Big 5 in Human Personality Assessments: CANOE 18,693

I started my Blog at another host back in 2004, and I moved twice before landing here at WordPress in 2007.

# # #

There Is Too Much Foo Foo!

Avoid the Foo Foo in Instructional Design and Performance Improvement

You Go Down The Learning Path to Go Up The Learning Curve – to go Up the Performance Competence Curve

Guy has been doing performance-based Training Paths and Planning Guides for clients since 1982. First published on Curriculum Architecture in Training Magazine in September 1984 and on the Analysis methods in NSPI's (now ISPI) PIJ in November 1984.

What Was Innovative in Curriculum or Learning Architectures in 1984 – Would Still Seem To Be Innovative Today – Why?

Celebrating – 30 Year Anniversary of this Publication – September 2014

How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down - Training Magazine - September 1984

Celebrating – 30 Year Anniversary of this Publication – November 2014

Using a Group Process to Create Models and Matrices - NSPI Performance & Instruction Journal - November 1984

Performance Development Paths

a.k.a.: Learning Paths focused on Performance Competence

Walk the Talk – of Processes Maturity

Walk the Talk – of Processes Alignment

Walk the Talk – of Processes Centricity

Myth Busting in L&D

Click on Image for the Post

In the Resource Tab…

3 Levers in EPPI – Enterprise Process Performance Improvement

Click Image to Link to the Post

The EPPI View of Processes and their Enablers and Enabling Systems

And the Enabling/ Provisioning Systems and Processes that enable the Enablers. Note that "Awareness/ Knowledge/ Skills" are just 1 of 12 categories of enabling Process Performance variables - when you include the design of the Process itself, first and foremost.

I Offer Over 150 Free Videos On This Site On the Topics of ISD and PI!